Speeding

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  Defendant argued that trial judge’s decision was an error of law because the evidence at trial was insufficient to satisfy the standard for admissibility of speedometer readings, which require: (1) evidence showing that the speedometer used to clock the speed of a defendant was tested against another speed-testing device and that the speedometer was operating properly at the time of the alleged violation; and (2) that the speedometer had been tested by an appropriate method within a reasonable period of time from the alleged violation.  See State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128, 132 (R.I. 1975); and State v. Barrows, 156 A.2d 81, 83 (R.I. 1959).  The Panel reviewed the trial testimony and noted the Officer testified only that he “believed” the speedometer was calibrated but did not have the calibration with him.  Further, the Panel noted there was no testimony as to the operational efficiency of the speedometer, the method of testing, or the time of calibration.  The Panel held that the evidence at trial was insufficient to satisfy the standard of admissibility to introduce the speed of Defendant’s vehicle.  Accordingly, the Panel held the trial judge’s decision was an error of law and dismissed the violation.

Town of North Smithfield v. Robert Pinardi, C.A. No. T10-0014 (April 14, 2010).pdf